Labels

Wednesday, 13 April 2016

Film Review - 'Gamer'

In the near future, eccentric genius, Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall),
invents a self-replicating nano-technology which, when implanted in a
human brain, replaces brain cells and allows a third party to take
direct control of the affected person's motor functions. A person under
the influence of this technology is always entirely aware of what is
happening - but, when someone else is in control, they are essentially
powerless.

Now, you might be thinking that technology like this would raise all
sorts of issues if it ever existed in the real world. And, you would
probably be right. But, this isn't the real world - so, instead of the
ethical debates you might expect, this new technology becomes the basis
for a pair of massively popular video games.

The first is 'Society' - where players can pay for the opportunity to
take direct control of real 'actors', who are payed for their voluntary
participation. Think of it like Second Life - only, somehow,
even more prone to outright creepiness. We're talking 'a man takes
control of a woman and directs her toward a known rapist, so that he can
watch the results in first-person' level of creepy, here. Once the
'actors' sign up to become an avatar in 'Society', there don't seem to
be many rules in place to protect them from the players. Though, on the
plus side, 'actors' are very well payed for their willing participation.

The other game is 'Slayers' - a real-world first-person shooter where
players take control of death row inmates. The rules of 'Slayers' state
that if a prisoner is able to survive 30 games, then they will earn a
full pardon and be released. Though, of course, no one has ever actually
survived that long. Most don't survive more than 10 matches - yet, as
the film opens, we are introduced to 'Kable' (Gerard Butler) who, under
the control of his player, 17 year old Simon (Logan Lerman), has managed
to survive 27. 'Kable' is moving closer and closer to earning the full
pardon that was promised to all of the participants in 'Slayers - the
only problem is that the actual release of a prisoner was never really
part of the plan.

Gamer is a film that seems to be targeted at an oddly
specific target audience - those that have a strong dislike for the
violence in video games, but don't have any problem with the violence in
film. It is a film that seems to have something that it desperately
wants to say about the influence of video games, and the dehumanising
effects of the violence portrayed within them. But, at the same time, it
revels in its own violence to such a great extent that any attempt at a
'message' is effectively undermined (even if it were a message that the
viewer would have been willing to accept - which is, of course, a whole
other issue).

Or, perhaps, it has nothing important to say on the matter? Perhaps Gamer
is really just a simple action film? One where the film-makers simply
took the science-fiction premise and ran with it - milking it for all it
was worth.

Honestly, I don't know which I would have preferred.

If Gamer does have a message that it wants to share with the
audience, then it is one that manages to be both incredibly
heavy-handed and vaguely hypocritical, at the same time. If, on the
other hand, there is no message or moral here, then we are left with a
violent action film that almost seems to judge you for enjoying the
violent spectacle it goes to such great lengths to provide. Either way,
the context of what we are offered serves to make actually watching Gamer a vaguely uncomfortable experience. Though, it is one that is likely to stay with you.

There are so many missed opportunities here, though. If either of the two games was the film's main focus, then Gamer
could have been every bit as interesting as it clearly wants to be.
With 'Society', you could have had the influence of anonymity, and the
way that it seems to encourage all sorts of abhorrent behaviour -
something which you can already see plenty of on the Internet, if you
take the time to look. With 'Slayers', you could have had a focus on the
relationship between the players and their chosen Avatars - and,
perhaps, even made some sort of coherent point about the dehumanising
effects of violence.

Both of these, very worthwhile, themes are touched on in the film.
But, neither is given the attention that it would seem to deserve.
Instead, they seem to have been awkwardly mashed together.

Then, there's the sudden change of tone about half-way through, when
'Kable', with the help of a group of activists, manages to escape from
the game. Free from the influence of his player, 'Kable' still displays a
willingness to maim and kill that would put your average 80s action
hero to shame. Any trace of interesting social commentary that the film
may have been working toward is lost in this later half, when Gamer seems to devolve into a much more traditional, if particularly brutal, action film.

I feel like I'm possibly being a little too hard on this film. After
all, I've never been averse to enjoying a bit of the old ultra-violence
in either film or video-games. There is a long and proud tradition,
within both mediums, of the spectacle of violence being used purely as a
form of shallow entertaining - and, I've never seen anything wrong with
that.

With Gamer, though, we have a film that clearly wants to
offer something more than that - or, at least, it seems to for the first
half, or so. For a couple of brief, though shining, moments early on,
it even manages to succeed - briefly becoming a much more thoughtful
sort of film as it explores the implications of its chosen themes. Of
course, all of this just makes the abrupt change in tone all the more
jarring - as the film, itself, becomes little more than a fairly
conventional action film, and the whole experience begins to feel like a
wasted opportunity.